We're not buying into that. We're answering the argument that "Only motorists are properly trained" by pointing out that most cyclists are motorists. This undermines the idea that cyclists are not trained. Once you've demolished that argument, there's nothing left to suggest that even non-driving cyclists are untrained.

It doesn't undermine that idea at all, for those that persist in the belief that a serious source of danger on the roads is untrained cyclists. By arguing that the reason people don't need to worry about this is because most cyclists are motorists and therefore road trained, you are undermining those cyclists who are not motorists, still a sizeable number of adults and all under 17 year olds. Not all cyclists are motorists, therefore many remain untrained (within the parameters of that argument) -they can just counter with that and it would be undeniable. What we should be saying is that the argument about cyclists being motorists or not, is a red herring and irrelevant to what is actually happening out there on the roads and the changes that need to be made to improve things. Don't buy into the myth that untrained cyclists are a significant danger on the roads. Don't allow those that perpetuate that myth to believe it is an argument worthy of consideration. It isn't. My counter to those who say that to me is, so what? Let us discuss the kinds of damage that occur on our roads, to whom and by whom, with actual road collision statistics, and then decide if the possibility that some cyclists aren't adequately trained is really something anyone should be worried about. And it clearly isn't.

We're not buying into that. We're answering the argument that "Only motorists are properly trained" by pointing out that most cyclists are motorists. This undermines the idea that cyclists are not trained. Once you've demolished that argument, there's nothing left to suggest that even non-driving cyclists are untrained.

It doesn't undermine that idea at all, for those that persist in the belief that a serious source of danger on the roads is untrained cyclists. By arguing that the reason people don't need to worry about this is because most cyclists are motorists and therefore road trained, you are undermining those cyclists who are not motorists, still a sizeable number of adults and all under 17 year olds. Not all cyclists are motorists, therefore many remain untrained (within the parameters of that argument) -they can just counter with that and it would be undeniable. What we should be saying is that the argument about cyclists being motorists or not, is a red herring and irrelevant to what is actually happening out there on the roads and the changes that need to be made to improve things. Don't buy into the myth that untrained cyclists are a significant danger on the roads. Don't allow those that perpetuate that myth to believe it is an argument worthy of consideration. It isn't. My counter to those who say that to me is, so what? Let us discuss the kinds of damage that occur on our roads, to whom and by whom, with actual road collision statistics, and then decide if the possibility that some cyclists aren't adequately trained is really something anyone should be worried about. And it clearly isn't.

Purely anecdotal analysis of my immediate family suggests the 80% figure is too high (it's actually 50% for us [5 out of 10 adults sampled] but 60% would be plausible). I'd love to know how they arrived at it.

I'd also be interested to know the corollary figure for the number of adult cyclists who own a driving licence.

Let us discuss the kinds of damage that occur on our roads, to whom and by whom, with actual road collision statistics, and then decide if the possibility that some cyclists aren't adequately trained is really something anyone should be worried about. And it clearly isn't.

Abso-bloody-lutely correct.

The amount of drivel I have to listen to from colleagues about how they were "nearly" mown down and murdered in cold blood by a scofflaw two-wheeled ninja or whatever... It's all in their mind. People see what they want to see. But the facts don't support the perception.

Let us discuss the kinds of damage that occur on our roads, to whom and by whom, with actual road collision statistics, and then decide if the possibility that some cyclists aren't adequately trained is really something anyone should be worried about. And it clearly isn't.

Abso-bloody-lutely correct.

The amount of drivel I have to listen to from colleagues about how they were "nearly" mown down and murdered in cold blood by a scofflaw two-wheeled ninja or whatever... It's all in their mind. People see what they want to see. But the facts don't support the perception.

Riding in London I regularly see cyclists narrowly zipping past pedestrians or weaving through crossings, right up to the point of bouncing off them and carrying on (this is not an exaggeration).

Equally I see motorists doing incredibly similar things, the difference is people are conditioned to defer to the superior mode of transport and leap out of the way without question. It's so normal that it doesn't make for a decent rant around the coffee machine.

Riding in London I regularly see cyclists narrowly zipping past pedestrians or weaving through crossings, right up to the point of bouncing off them and carrying on (this is not an exaggeration).

Equally I see motorists doing incredibly similar things, the difference is people are conditioned to defer to the superior mode of transport and leap out of the way without question. It's so normal that it doesn't make for a decent rant around the coffee machine.

You're missing the point entirely. What is the net effect of this inconsiderate behaviour by cyclists? It's rude and annoying, sure, but it doesn't kill several hundred people a year.

If it's just the rudeness and lack of consideration that's the problem, well, for that matter pedestrians are no better behaved (have you never been barged out of the way by an inconsiderate pedestrian?), but when did anyone ever call for training, insurance and licensing for pedestrians?

Yes, going through red lights is actually illegal and I don't condone it, but the idea that RLJing cyclists are a major menace on the road is utter nonsense. It is not a problem that needs solving. There are far more pressing matters that do need attention.

Citoyen, while I would tend to agree I have to point out that your response ignores the realpolitik of the situation. If the RLJ cyclists enrage a driver such that they take it out on others, then sure the bigger "fault" is with the driver, but it is the original low-impact action that is the butterfly flapping its wings.

There's a whole argument out there about how much your own appropriate actions should be governed by the inappropriate reaction of another, but as we agree RLJ is inappropriate I suggest that doesn't apply.

I'm fed up with the realpolitik of the situation. It's about time we ignored it and addressed the real problems on our roads instead. That means better policing of the class of road users who kill several hundred people a year, not a few token fines for cyclists to appease Daily Mail readers.

For a start, I'd suggest a major advertising campaign to remind motorists that they belong to this class. "You're not in traffic, you are traffic." "You're x times more likely to kill someone with your car than win the lottery." "You are not Lewis Hamilton, this is not Silverstone, slow the fuck down." That kind of thing.

I was just trying (and failing, obv.) to add that despite the fact there as much, if not more, such behaviour by motorists, and despite the fact it's much more likely to result in injury, the near total acceptance of car-is-king means you don't have colleagues ranting about it.

I'm fed up with the realpolitik of the situation. It's about time we ignored it and addressed the real problems on our roads instead. That means better policing of the class of road users who kill several hundred people a year, not a few token fines for cyclists to appease Daily Mail readers.

For a start, I'd suggest a major advertising campaign to remind motorists that they belong to this class. "You're not in traffic, you are traffic." "You're x times more likely to kill someone with your car than win the lottery." "You are not Lewis Hamilton, this is not Silverstone, slow the fuck down." That kind of thing.

Not actually arguing with you there, just that considering cycling both highlights and confuses the issue; cycling isn't the high risk activity as we all agree.

I'm fed up with the realpolitik of the situation. It's about time we ignored it and addressed the real problems on our roads instead. That means better policing of the class of road users who kill several hundred people a year, not a few token fines for cyclists to appease Daily Mail readers.

For a start, I'd suggest a major advertising campaign to remind motorists that they belong to this class. "You're not in traffic, you are traffic." "You're x times more likely to kill someone with your car than win the lottery." "You are not Lewis Hamilton, this is not Silverstone, slow the fuck down." That kind of thing.

I've just gone a tiny bit weak at the knees and breathless with admiration.

I was just trying (and failing, obv.) to add that despite the fact there as much, if not more, such behaviour by motorists, and despite the fact it's much more likely to result in injury, the near total acceptance of car-is-king means you don't have colleagues ranting about it.

Ok, fair enough. Sorry for going off on one. Yes, on re-reading your post, I see what you're getting at.

I've always thought there should be a risk-o-meter in a car. In these days of sophisticated computers it ought to be possible for add one to a car that analyses the driving style and applies an algorithm based on the data being compiled. Then, when the driver gets in, it could announce (celeb voices will be available) 'your likelihood of severe injury or death during this journey is x. Your probability of a serious accident that may injure other people is y.' Perhaps there could be some en route annotation, say, when driving too fast it could add helpful comments 'your accident risk has just risen to z'.

You know, I think I'm only halfway being facetious.

Citoyen is right on a money, I think.

I'm sure I've told the story before, but I rarely let that stop me, but a year or so back I was walking across a pedestrianised area behind Temple Meads station (near the back entrance). There was a white van awkwardly reversing across the same precinct (presumably to make a delivery). The driver was on his mobile. There were no 'vehicle reversing' type safety features. There was a middle-aged woman walking towards me. At about this time, a cyclist rode through the precinct. Not particularly close to either of us, thought a little too fast. That said, unless he'd had to suddenly avoid a stealth elephant, we weren't in danger. Did I mention the white van about a metre away?

The woman as she'd passed said to me: 'cyclists really should be stopped from riding through here, someone is going to get hurt' (or words to that effect). The van might as well have been a stealth elephant.

In the same way that Lloyds of London used to ring the Lutine bell each time an overdue ship was confirmed as lost at sea I think the NHS should install a bell in the DfT and each Highways office and ring it each time an ambulance arrives at A&E with someone involved in a car 'accident'. Considering the numbers of KSI on Britains roads each year it might focus minds on the toll of death.

In a simillar manner the Newspapers used to report the loss of every ship and ship wrecks were frontpage news. How about the BBC news website reports all KSI incidents for a month or two. It might just bring to the publics attention the costs of our transport choices.

Whether "In 2010, 80% of males and 66% of females held a full car driving licence", refers to the whole population or to some subset, if the "cyclists" in "80% of cyclists hold a driving licence" are a broadly similar but slightly skewed subset, then the two figures are reasonably well aligned.

By "slightly skewed" I mean that "cyclists", however defined, includes proportionately rather more males and rather more adults than the original set did.

Looking at the number of trips by main mode per person per year table that the OP linked, in 2012 the TPPPY by bicycle were 16, so the "1 in 5 drivers cycle at least once a month" seems plausible too.

Making huge assumptions: let's suppose that half the population drive. Then 1 in 5 drivers cycling once a month would bring the TPPPY by bike up to 1.2. That leaves the remaining 14.8 to be made up by those of us who cycle a lot more than once a month, whether or not we drive.